GEC104: Mathematics in the

Modern World
LOGIC AND REASONING
Source: DMS GEC104 LECTURE NOTES 2018

Ma. Cristina Duyaguit

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, CSM
Logic and Reasoning

MATHEMATICAL LOGIC

 study of valid reasoning

 deals with the methods of reasoning; provides rules and

techniques to determine whether an argument is valid

Math and Stat Department, CSM 1

Logic and Reasoning

Proposition (Statement)

 a (complete) declarative sentence that has a truth value which

is either TRUE (denoted by T) or FALSE (denoted by F) (but
not both)

Ex. 1. Today is Wednesday. (a statement)

2. 12 < 7 (a statement)
3. Please lend me your ears. (not a statement)

Math and Stat Department, CSM 2

Logic and Reasoning

● Negation of a Proposition

 a proposition obtained by taking the negation of a given

proposition
 the “negation connective” uses the symbol ~ or  (to mean
not).
Ex. p : I like Pepsi. 𝑝: I do not like Pepsi.
q : I like Coke. 𝑞: I don’t like Coke.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 3

Logic and Reasoning

Argument (Mathematical Reasoning)

 a series of statements made in support of an assertion together

with the assertion drawn from these supporting statements
● Parts of an Argument
 premises – supporting statements
 conclusion – assertion drawn from these premises

Math and Stat Department, CSM 4

Logic and Reasoning

● The premises of an argument are offered in support of an argument.

 supposed to be reasons to believe the conclusion

● Argument can be classified according to how strong the relation of

support between the premises and the conclusion.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 5

Logic and Reasoning

● Types of Argument (Mathematical Reasoning)

 Deductive Reasoning
 Inductive Reasoning
● Main Differences

 Structure
 Strength

Math and Stat Department, CSM 6

Logic and Reasoning

● Structure
 Deductive Reasoning
 moving from general premises to specific conclusion
Ex. 1. All dogs are animals,
so my dog is an animal.
2. All men are mortal.
I am a man.
Therefore, I am mortal.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 7

Logic and Reasoning

● Structure
 Inductive Reasoning
 making a general conclusion based on specific
premises
Ex. Every object that I release from my hand falls to the ground.
Therefore, the next object I release from my hand will fall to
the ground.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 8

Logic and Reasoning

● Strength

 Inductive Reasoning

 If the premise is true, conclusion is MORE LIKELY to be

true (but could be false).

Ex. Suppose you wanted to prove that all swans are white. How would
you do it?

Math and Stat Department, CSM 9

Logic and Reasoning

● Using inductive argument:

 I have seen a lot of swans and they were all white.

( OR may say)
 Every swan I have seen so far has been white, so the next
swan I see will be white.

 Question: Are all swans really white?

 Answer: No! (Black swans exist!)

Math and Stat Department, CSM 10

Logic and Reasoning

• Validity of an Argument
 A deductive argument is valid if the truth of its premises
guarantees the truth of the conclusion, i.e., if the premises are
true, then the conclusion MUST BE true.
 This is a strong argument.
 Invalid argument – an argument which is not valid

Math and Stat Department, CSM 11

Logic and Reasoning

Remarks:

1. The premises of a valid argument need not have to be true. In fact,

a valid argument may have a false conclusion.

Ex. Romy likes either coffee or beer.

Romy does not like coffee.
Therefore, Romy likes beer.

2. Inductive argument is never valid!

Math and Stat Department, CSM 12

Logic and Reasoning

● Soundness of an Argument
 An argument is sound if it is valid and has premises which are
true.

 A MUST-HAVE GOAL:
 When we construct an argument, we must aim to construct one
that is not only valid, but sound.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 13

Logic and Reasoning

Remarks:

1. Only valid arguments can be sound or unsound.

2. An invalid argument is never sound!

Math and Stat Department, CSM 14

Logic and Reasoning

● Test of Validity

 To determine if an argument is valid, we need to know

1. the form of the argument and
2. whether it is possible for that form to have true
premises and a false conclusion.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 15

Logic and Reasoning

● Counter-example to an Argument
 Form
 an argument of the same form that has true premises
and a false conclusion
 True Premise
 True Premise
 False Conclusion
 If the argument form is valid, it is impossible to find a counter-example.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 16

Logic and Reasoning

Consider the ff. argument:

 All men are mortal.
 Socrates is not a man.
 Therefore, Socrates is not mortal.

● Question: Is this argument valid?

● Hint: One may use the counter-example to an argument to show

that the given argument is invalid.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 17

Logic and Reasoning

● Euler Diagram

 may be used to visually evaluate the validity of a deductive

argument
 essentially the same thing as a Venn diagram

Math and Stat Department, CSM 18

Logic and Reasoning

● Analyzing an Argument with the Euler Diagram

 Draw an Euler diagram based on the premises of the

argument.
 The argument is invalid if there is a way to draw the diagram
that makes the conclusion false.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 19

Logic and Reasoning

 The argument is valid if the diagram cannot be drawn to make

the conclusion false.
 If the premises are insufficient to determine the location of an
element or a set mentioned in the conclusion, then the
argument is invalid.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 20

Logic and Reasoning

● Consider the deductive argument

“All cats are mammals and a tiger is a cat, so a tiger is a
mammal.” Is this argument valid?

Math and Stat Department, CSM 21

Logic and Reasoning

● Premise: All firefighters know CPR.

● Premise: Jill knows CPR.
● Conclusion: Jill is a firefighter.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 22

Logic and Reasoning

● Evaluating Deductive Arguments with Truth Tables

 Arguments can also be analyzed using truth tables, although

this can be a lot of work.

 Steps:

1. Represent each of the premises symbolically.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 23

Logic and Reasoning

2. Create a conditional statement, joining all the premises to

form the antecedent, and using the conclusion as the
consequent.

3. Create a truth table for the statement. If it is always true, then

the argument is valid.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 24

Logic and Reasoning
Basic truth tables: Let 𝑝 and 𝑞 be propositions (statements)
Conjunction Disjunction Conditional Biconditional
𝑝 𝑞 𝑝∧𝒒 𝑝 𝑞 𝑝∨𝒒 𝑝 𝑞 𝑝→𝒒 𝑝 𝑞 𝑝↔𝒒
T T T T T T T T T T T T

T F F T F T T F F T F F

F T F F T T F T T F T F

F F F F F F F F T F F T

Negation
𝑝 ¬𝑝
T F
F T

Math and Stat Department, CSM 25

Logic and Reasoning

● Consider the following argument:

Premise: If you bought bread, then you went to the store.

Premise: You bought bread.
Conclusion: You went to the store.

 Let b represent “you bought bread”

and s represent “you went to the store”.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 26

Logic and Reasoning

Then the argument becomes:

Premise: b→s
Premise: b
Conclusion: s

 To test the validity, we determine if it is true that [(b → s) ⋀ b] → s.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 27

Logic and Reasoning

𝒃 𝒔 𝒃→𝒔 𝒃 𝒔 𝒃→𝒔 (𝒃 → 𝒔) ∧ 𝒃
T T T T T T T
T F F T F F F
F T T F T T F
F F T F F T F

𝒃 𝒔 𝒃→𝒔 (𝒃 → 𝒔) ∧ 𝒃 [(𝒃 → 𝒔) ∧ 𝒃] → 𝒔

T T T T T

T F F F T

F T T F T

F F T F T

Math and Stat Department, CSM 28

Logic and Reasoning

● Common Forms of Valid Arguments

 Determining the validity of an argument may be made easier if

the argument falls in one of the common forms of arguments
that are valid (or invalid).

Math and Stat Department, CSM 29

Logic and Reasoning

 The Law of Detachment (Modus Ponens- “mode that affirms”)

 The law of detachment applies when a conditional and its

antecedent are given as premises, and the consequent is the
conclusion.
 The general form is:
Premise: p→q
Premise: p
Conclusion: q

Math and Stat Department, CSM 30

Logic and Reasoning

 The Law of Contraposition (Modus Tollens- “mode that denies”)

 The law of contraposition applies when a conditional and the

negation of its consequent are given as premises, and the
negation of its antecedent is the conclusion.
 The general form is:
Premise: p→q
Premise: ~q
Conclusion: ~p

Math and Stat Department, CSM 31

Logic and Reasoning

● Some Invalid Arguments (Fallacies)

 The Fallacy of the Converse

 arises when a conditional and its consequent are given as

premises, and the antecedent is the conclusion.
 The general form is:
Premise: p→q
Premise: q
Conclusion: p

Math and Stat Department, CSM 32

Logic and Reasoning

Example:
Premise: If a teacher is a PhD holder, then he/she is a trainer.
Premise: Teacher Maria is a trainer.
Conclusion: Maria is a PhD holder.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 33

Logic and Reasoning

 The Fallacy of the Inverse

 occurs when a conditional and the negation of its antecedent

are given as premises, and the negation of the consequent is
the conclusion.
 The general form is:
Premise: p→q
Premise: ~p
Conclusion: ~q

Math and Stat Department, CSM 34

Logic and Reasoning

Example:
Premise: If a teacher is a PhD holder, then he or she is a trainer.
Premise: Teacher Maria is not a PhD holder.
Conclusion: Maria is not a trainer.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 35

Logic and Reasoning

● What type of argument does a mathematician use?

 mathematician uses inductive reasoning to make some

guesses or conjectures
 use deductive reasoning to prove these conjectures

 A statement that can be shown or proved to be true is called a

theorem.

Math and Stat Department, CSM 36

 End Page

Source: DMS GEC104 LECTURE NOTES 2018

Click to edit subtitle style